The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1887-04-25
The Madras Case.
SUPREME C0URT.-.APRlL TERM,
1887.
JUSTICE M'CULLY, PRESIDING.
BEFORE JuRY-JURY FINDS FOR
PLAINTIFFS.

follows:-
Judge McCully began his charge
to the jury at 1870. His Honor said
that the Madras had the same rights
as other British ships, although she
was transient ship of the class
called "Ocean Tramps." That she
arrived unannounced did not affect
her rights. The Court proceeded to
instruct the jury in response TO re-
quests from counsel ON both sides.
The first instruction of each party
touched the question of the right Of
a vessel having contagious disease,
such rs smallpox on board to enter our
ports, or could she in the discretion
of the Government be altogether
prohibited from landing passengers
or cargo. The Madras had the
right, under the treaty with the
United Kingdom, to be admitted to
quarantine. The laws relating to
the Board of Health, and the regu-
lations of that body, implied the
right of quarantine to vessels. The
Board is required to provide places
and means Of quarantine, and is en-
powered to make regulations which
must lie observed under penalties.
If the vessel violated the Boards
regulations, she was liable to confis-
cation; but there was no law or
regulation which said that n vessel,
under any circumstances, should
have no quarantine at all. His
Honor referred to a former decision,
Gibson VS.. the Madras. for the re-
covery of expenses for detention of
the vessel outside, heard first by the
Chief Justice, and afterwards, on
appeal, by the full Court. He
agreed with Mr.. Whiting that the
decision must stand upon the Ian
guage employed, but in his opinion
what was meant in the part quoted
by counsel was that vessel could
be refused admission, in fact, al
though wrongfully, but that prohibi-
ton was not quarantine. The argu-
ment of defendant was: "Shall it be
said that any vessel with contagion
on board shall be allowed to steam
into this port2'' 'No," was the
Courts answer; ''she cannot come
in without restriction, but she is en-
titled to come in subject to quaran-
tine laws and regulations. His
Honor quoted further from the
former decision as part of his in
structions, and said that the testi-
mony of the port physician, who was
agent of the Board of Health, was
very positive to show that the pas
sengers might have been landed in
quarantine, and the vessel permitted
to continue on her voyage. The
vessel herself did not require quar-
antine, provided her passengers were
not kept aboard of her.
The time the vessel was detained
before quarantining was not quaran-
tine. This was the ruling of the
Court in the case of w. M. Gibson,
President of the Board of Health VS..
the Madras, and cannot be disre-
garded by the jury. She was more
Joul when she commenced quaran-
tine than when she first arrived.
She was compelled to keep her
passengers here because she could
not land them, and could not
carry them anywhere else. Ac-
cording to the regulations of the
Board Of Health, vessel with con-
tagious disease on board should be
admitted to quarantine on arrival.
Fifteen days detention would not
be necessary for the vessel, provided
she was admitted to quarantine and
allowed to land her passengers.
Defendant asked for instructions
that the plaintiffs were not entitled to
damages, on certain grounds con-
tanned in the evidence regarding the
refusal of the Collector General
which the Court declined to give.
The expression of willingness by the
Board of Health to admit the vessel
to quarantine as to supplies without
landing her passengers did not make
it quarantine, whatever it might
be called. Any i'll temper, hard
language, etc., of the captain were
not to be considered in the case.
The captain was liable, if he violated
any provisions of the quarantine, to
be fined, but the vessel or passen-
gers were not on that account to be
denied quarantine.
His Honor did not see the
application of the law of 1878,
that vessel from China should not
be allowed to enter without the
consent of the Governor of the
Island. The captain of the Madras
did ask for quarantine and was re-
fused. The vessel having rights, if
she was refused her rights, damages
were thereby occasioned her, and
she had q right to recover them.
Those damages had been set forth
in items and they were such as the
vessel incurred by detention which
otherwise she would not have incur
red. The Court instructed the jury
that not more than two "lay days"
should be allowed, for the time con-
sumed by ber detention outside could
not be employed for the ships advan-
taIe, and gave instruction on other